http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663

Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever identified?


--
Adam

"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663

Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever identified?

Who cares?
Stupid American ****pigs.

Probably because its so bloody boring and they all went down the pub.

Brian

"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663

Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever identified?


--
Adam


--
From the laptop of

"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663

Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever identified?

Because no one has claimed a larger one YET.

ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663

Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever
identified?

Because an apprentice found it and you cannot verify if he foundit first?

In message , Rod Speed
writes


"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663

Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever identified?

Because (large) prime numbers are used in all encryption systems. These
systems rely for security on no-one being able to predict where to find
'new' or existing primes. If someone has worked out how to do it, they
won't shout about it because they'll be in control of everybody else's
private information.
Because no one has claimed a larger one YET.

--
Nick (=----)

On Friday 08 February 2013 18:11 ARW wrote in uk.d-i-y:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663

Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever identified?



I'm guessing that it has not been independently verified?


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceived SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

"She got her looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon."

In message , Nick
writes
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663

Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever identified?

Because (large) prime numbers are used in all encryption systems. These
systems rely for security on no-one being able to predict where to find
'new' or existing primes. If someone has worked out how to do it, they
won't shout about it because they'll be in control of everybody else's
private information.
Because no one has claimed a larger one YET.

I'm currently reading *The Music of the Primes* and wishing my maths
were more robust.


--
Tim Lamb

On 08/02/2013 19:31, Nick wrote:
Because (large) prime numbers are used in all encryption systems. These
systems rely for security on no-one being able to predict where to find
'new' or existing primes. If someone has worked out how to do it, they
won't shout about it because they'll be in control of everybody else's
private information.

It likely is the largest one identified. If someone has found a fast way
to factor large numbers they won't be interested in numbers bigger than
encryption keys - so only a hundred or so digits.

Andy

On 08/02/2013 19:31, Nick wrote:
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663

Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever identified?

Because (large) prime numbers are used in all encryption systems. These
systems rely for security on no-one being able to predict where to find
'new' or existing primes.

Not sure how that answers the question!

However its worth noting that practical encryption systems don't need
need numbers with digits into the megabytes!



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 08/02/2013 19:29, Unbeliever wrote:
ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663

Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever
identified?

Because an apprentice found it and you cannot verify if he foundit first?

Good old Unbeliever!

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 18:11:11 -0000, "ARW"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663

Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever identified?

It was just lying around, waiting to be discovered?
Feck me.

In message , John
Rumm writes
On 08/02/2013 19:31, Nick wrote:
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663

Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever identified?

Because (large) prime numbers are used in all encryption systems. These
systems rely for security on no-one being able to predict where to find
'new' or existing primes.

Not sure how that answers the question!


However its worth noting that practical encryption systems don't need
need numbers with digits into the megabytes!
Agreed I put that extremely badly, but if you know where the ones used
for encryption are, then it's likely you know where they will find the
next Mersenne prime as well. As you wouldn't tell anyone if you did
know, I thought it answered the question.




--
Nick (=----)

On Feb 8, 7:31*pm, Nick wrote:
Because (large) prime numbers are used in all encryption systems.

If it's the 'largest known prime' it's probably a Mersenne prime
(2^n-1) in which case it's of no relevance to encryption, and would
explain its discoverer believing it to be of "no practical use". The
largest known prime has almost always been a Mersenne prime "since the
dawn of electronic computers":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

On Friday, February 8, 2013 7:31:34 PM UTC, Nick wrote:
In message , Rod Speed
writes
"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663
Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever
identified?
Because somebody wanted to cover their arse just in case they hadn't
checked the literature properly

Because (large) prime numbers are used in all encryption systems.
Not so. They aren't used in symmetric encryption (where the same key is
used for encryption and decryption). They also aren't used in elliptic
curve asymmetric encryption.

Having said that, because of patents (spit) on elliptic curve
cryptography, there is an awful lot of cryptography which depends on
on prime numbers.

These
systems rely for security on no-one being able to predict where to find
'new' or existing primes. If someone has worked out how to do it, they
won't shout about it because they'll be in control of everybody else's
private information.
That depends on who finds out how to predict where prime numbers are.
Doing so would be Fields medal material (Nobel prize for mathematicians),
so academics would publish like a shot. OTOH, if the discoverer works for
NSA, GCHQ, Russian equivalent, Chinese equivalent, etc, they will will
keep very sputum indeed.

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:14:55 PM UTC, Martin Bonner wrote:
On Friday, February 8, 2013 7:31:34 PM UTC, Nick wrote:
Because (large) prime numbers are used in all encryption systems.
Not so. They aren't used in symmetric encryption ...
... and subsequent messages show you obviously knew that. OTOH, my
message may stop someone else getting confused.

Martin Bonner wrote:

That depends on who finds out how to predict where prime numbers are.
Doing so would be Fields medal material (Nobel prize for mathematicians),
so academics would publish like a shot. OTOH, if the discoverer works for
NSA, GCHQ, Russian equivalent, Chinese equivalent, etc, they will will
keep very sputum indeed.

Do I detect the curse of autocorrection? ;-)

Tim

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 20:35:19 +0000 (UTC), Tim+
wrote:

NSA, GCHQ, Russian equivalent, Chinese equivalent, etc, they will will
keep very sputum indeed.

Do I detect the curse of autocorrection? ;-)

Who gives a spit?

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:35:19 PM UTC, Tim+ wrote:
Martin Bonner wrote:
That depends on who finds out how to predict where prime numbers are.
Doing so would be Fields medal material (Nobel prize for mathematicians),
so academics would publish like a shot. OTOH, if the discoverer works for
NSA, GCHQ, Russian equivalent, Chinese equivalent, etc, they will will
keep very sputum indeed.

Do I detect the curse of autocorrection? ;-)

Oddly enough, no. I have no idea how that happened. I was trying for "shtum".

On 09/02/2013 18:11, Richard Russell wrote:
On Feb 8, 7:31 pm, Nick wrote:
Because (large) prime numbers are used in all encryption systems.

If it's the 'largest known prime' it's probably a Mersenne prime
(2^n-1) in which case it's of no relevance to encryption, and would
explain its discoverer believing it to be of "no practical use". The

The practical uses that come from finding these things are the spin offs
that arise out of the technology developed to make the original search
possible. New algorithms, and collaborative computing efforts etc.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 18:11:11 -0000, "ARW"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21382663

Why is it only "thought" to be the largest prime number ever identified?

It was just lying around, waiting to be discovered?
Feck me.

Didn't you know there were places in Dorset where they are just lying on
the beach ready to be picked up


--
geoff